88 / 120
70
MINING FOR CLOSURE
subsidies for economically marginal re-mining
operations where this would still be cheaper to
the government than underwriting the costs of
rehabilitation;
redevelopment for and operation of post-min-
ing sites as ‘biosphere reserves’ or equivalent to
add to the national inventory of natural areas;
redevelopment of sites that may also have tour-
ism potential.
Moreover, consultation with the government and
community leaders will be necessary to identify how
essential community services such as medical care,
schools, and so forth can be continued after mine
closure (particularly those sponsored by mining
companies during operational life). Pathways can
involve the establishment of foundations to provide
long-term sustainability for such services or direct
linking of them to economic activities in post-min-
ing areas such as those listed above. A similar ap-
proach is to establish a community trust fund that
is protected against inflation. The income from the
fund can allow the communities to take a long-term
view of sustainability. Such a fund may also allow
the communities to build their own capacity in or-
der to manage the financial resources sustainable.
who should act and where?
In this case there are actions required of most ma-
jor stakeholders in mining projects.
Government should bear the central accountability
for social and community issues and for planning to
ensure that communities are left in a self-sustaining
condition post-closure, however mining companies
can (and do in many jurisdictions) provide assistance
or facilitate a consultative process with stakeholders.
Mining companies should bear the responsibility
for the technical and safety aspects of mine closure
working to the regulatory requirements or within
the frames of agreements of the government.
Mining companies should also carry the responsibility
for the identification and management of risks (both
operational and residual). However, certainty in envi-
ronmental issues is rare, andgovernmentsmust clearly
define the level of risk that they are willing to accept at
closure. Firm and fair agreements must be established
between such parties as early as is practicable.
Miners and government should ensure that com-
munities, NGOs and other social stakeholders are
brought into the process and are involved in clari-
fication of what level of risk are acceptable at the
current time. Further, efforts should be made to
project what levels of risk may be acceptable or un-
acceptable within a reasonable future and ongoing
dialogue throughout the mine life needs to be un-
dertaken in order to update and adjust plans.
Government needs to set a clear legislative and
fiscal framework. The initial licensing procedures
and requirements can be used to initiate the proc-
ess of mine closure planning and community con-
sultation.
Local/provincial government should, where practi-
cable, integrate mining projects into the regional
development plan with goals to reduce the depend-
ency of the region on the mine and can create a
context for planning and delivering social services
(e.g. health and education) by government rather
than by the mine by actors other than the mine.
Miners and provincial governments may seek to
address community and social issues via the es-
tablishment of foundations structured to exist for
a period of time after mine life. An additional role
that such bodies can serve is to work with the gov-
ernment to develop governmental capacity where
it is lacking.
when should these actions be
taken?
The earlier the better! It is in the best interest of
business, government and external stakeholders
for such activities to take place at the right phase
of mine life in order to minimise expenditures
and minimise overall environmental and health
related nuisances. Further, as mine decommission-
ing usually occurs at a point in the life of an opera-
tion where the economic recovery of minerals has
ceased, and cash flows are minimal or non-existent,
then this is not the time to be undertaking the bulk
of rehabilitation operations. Similarly, social issues
are best planned for early in a project lifetime.
6.3
new mining
resources and new
re-mining projects
New mining projects and the conduct of re-mining
offer a range of opportunities for environmental,
social and economic improvement in SEE/TRB. If
•
•
•